Time Limit For Point of Order

[Guest Bdw2003]

If a special meeting was held although not provided for in the bylaws, what would the time limit be for raising a point of order for holding the invalid meeting?

[Richard Brown]

1 hour ago, Guest Bdw2003 said:

If a special meeting was held although not provided for in the bylaws, what would the time limit be for raising a point of order for holding the  invalid meeting?

As long as the breach continues... as long as any motions adopted are still in effect or any officers elected are still in office. 

[Rob Elsman]

I believe there are motions that are "still in effect", but also fully executed.  A Point of Order cannot be raised about a continuing breach arising from such a motion, since the completion of the execution of the motion ends the breach of the rules.

[Richard Brown]

On 1/28/2021 at 3:48 AM, Guest Bdw2003 said:

If a special meeting was held although not provided for in the bylaws, what would the time limit be for raising a point of order for holding the invalid meeting?

For more information on timely Points of Order and continuing breaches, see sections 23:5, 23:6, and 46:49. You might also see sections 10:55 and 25:9.

[Atul Kapur]

On 1/29/2021 at 6:59 PM, Rob Elsman said:

I believe there are motions that are "still in effect", but also fully executed

Can you provide an example?

[Rob Elsman]

Most main motions eventually fall into this category.  Exceptions include those that have been rejected upon reconsideration; that have been rescinded; and, that contain a "sunset clause".

[Atul Kapur]

RONR uses the term "still in force" rather than "still in effect," and this influences whether other motions are improper (39:5)

I'm not clear on what it means to say that a motion that has been fully executed is "still in effect." What are the implications of that?

 

[J. J.]

A motion "to close the public rooms of the clubhouse until September 1, 2021," will no longer be in effect on 9/1/21.  A motion, "to buy 100 shares of Gameboy stock," will no longer be in effect when the stock is purchased. 

 

[Atul Kapur]

Thanks, J.J.. That is my interpretation, as well (my post above yours originally included similar examples). But Mr. Elsman appears to have a different opinion, which is what I was trying to understand.

It's relevant because, using the Gameboy example, once the stock has been purchased, then a later motion to sell the stock would be a new main motion which requires a majority vote for adoption. If the motion were, incorrectly, considered "still in force" then it would require the higher thresholds needed to adopt a motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted.

That is why I am asking Mr. Elsman if he believes that there is a difference between "still in effect" and "still in force".

[Guest Bdw2003]

So, assume there is a special meeting called which is not provided for in the bylaws, and the "meeting" is not for disciplinary purposes.

If action is taken at this "meeting," such as a standing rule is adopted, then at another meeting while the rule is in force someone raises a point of order against it, it would be declared null and void?

Could the assembly ratify the action at a properly called meeting with a quorum present, or would it have to be moved and adopted again as if it never had been?

If the assembly continued to operate under the standing rule without ratifying or making the motion again at a proper meeting, would things sail along as if it were acceptable to the assembly, unless someone raised a point of order?

If the action at the "meeting" was instead something that has already been executed, such as approving an event that was later held, then it is no longer in effect. Could a point of order be raised against this action? What would the effect of it be, if so?

[Josh Martin]

4 hours ago, Guest Bdw2003 said:

If action is taken at this "meeting," such as a standing rule is adopted, then at another meeting while the rule is in force someone raises a point of order against it, it would be declared null and void?

Yes.

4 hours ago, Guest Bdw2003 said:

Could the assembly ratify the action at a properly called meeting with a quorum present, or would it have to be moved and adopted again as if it never had been?

In this instance, no, the action may not be ratified. Actions taken by members outside of a properly called meeting may not be ratified. Depending on the nature of the rule, it may be possible to ratify certain actions taken in connection with the rule by officers, boards, committees, etc. (see below), but the adoption of the rule itself may not be ratified.

The motion to adopt the standing rule would need to be made anew.

4 hours ago, Guest Bdw2003 said:

If the assembly continued to operate under the standing rule without ratifying or making the motion again at a proper meeting, would things sail along as if it were acceptable to the assembly, unless someone raised a point of order?

I suppose, but the breach will continue for as long as the rule is in effect, so this doesn't seem like a particularly wise course of action. Even if everyone is fine with "looking the other way" now, there is no guarantee that will continue indefinitely. It would seem more prudent to properly adopt the rule.

4 hours ago, Guest Bdw2003 said:

If the action at the "meeting" was instead something that has already been executed, such as approving an event that was later held, then it is no longer in effect. Could a point of order be raised against this action? What would the effect of it be, if so?

I don't think in that instance that a Point of Order would be the appropriate tool. The assembly could, however, take disciplinary action against those responsible, up to and including ordering those persons responsible to repay any unauthorized expenditures of the society's funds.

Although the society still cannot ratify the motion itself, the society can ratify actions taken by officers, boards, committees, etc. in excess of their authority. So if the society supported the holding of the event, it would seem prudent to ratify those actions in order to protect those persons against potential future disciplinary action.

Additionally, if the society wants to have the ability to hold special meetings, then it would seem prudent to amend the bylaws to provide for them, so there is an option for the society to take urgent action other than officers simply taking the actions without the authority to do so and praying that those actions are later ratified.

Edited February 1, 2021 at 02:02 PM by Josh Martin

[Richard Brown]

I agree completely with the outstanding responses by Josh Martin in the post immediately above in response to the questions asked by Guest Bdw2003.   I think that exchange provides excellent guidance as to actions which can and cannot be ratified and the possible consequences of taking actions which are not or cannot be ratified.

[Guest Bdw2003]

Would the same principles apply for any improperly called meeting, such as an electronic meeting not authorized in the bylaws?

[Richard Brown]

26 minutes ago, Guest Bdw2003 said:

Would the same principles apply for any improperly called meeting, such as an electronic meeting not authorized in the bylaws?

Yes.